COSMETIC ALERT! Why You Should Dump These Cosmetics Today...

Dr. Samuel Epstein is a well respected professional in
cancer prevention. He is a professor emeritus of
occupational and environment medicine at the University of
Illinois in Chicago, and is an expert on toxins. He is also
the chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition.

Dr.
Epstein has authored 270 scientific articles, and 15 books
on the causes and prevention of cancer. These include the
groundbreaking Politics of Cancer (1979), and most recently
Toxic Beauty (2009) about carcinogens and other controversial ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products.

Sources:

Dr. Epstein’s background makes him exceptionally
well-qualified to discuss topics related to cancer
prevention, and the toxicological causes of cancer
that must be part of any effective cancer prevention
plan.

In this interview he offers a vital overview of
four topics, three of them related to toxic
exposures that promote cancer, and lastly, he raises
an urgently important question: With everything we
already know about cancer, why is prevention
completely ignored in the government’s cancer plan?

Once you look at what’s being done, and more
importantly, what’s NOT being done, cancer starts to
look like a profitable business plan in and of
itself. Only when viewed under this loupe does
ignoring cancer prevention make sense.

A Serious Warning about Nano-Technology in
Cosmeceuticals

Dr. Epstein has serious concerns about cosmetic
products containing nano-particles, and that the
facts about these technologies are being hidden and
ignored.

These ingredients are used in many different
brands of cosmetics and cosmeceuticals, so I
encourage you to use this information to evaluate
ANY type of cosmetic you’re considering buying.

Some of these nano-particles are so dangerous, in
fact, they’re slowly but surely becoming known as
“universal asbestos.”

“There is no labeling of the warning at
all of the dangers of these nanoparticles,
instead they are touted as reducing wrinkling
and firming up the skin surface,” he says.

"However, the use of nanoparticles in
cosmeceuticals, whether they are sham
cosmeceuticals or whether they’re bonafide
cosmeceuticals, poses an extraordinarily
dangerous and unrecognized public health
hazards.

Nanoparticles, because of their
ultramicroscopic size, readily penetrate the
skin, can invade underlying blood vessels, get
into the general blood stream, and produce
distant toxic effects.

We already have evidence of this,
including toxic effects in the brain,
degenerative disorders in the brain, and nerve
damage. So we’re dealing here with one of the
most dangerous types of products in the whole
cosmetic industry.

They warned that these high risk products must be
banned and removed from the market to protect public
health.

“About two years later, in mid-2008, the
British Royal Commission report warned that
products that contain nanoparticles pose very,
very high toxic risks,” Epstein says.

Many products can also contain other controversial ingredients, such as allergens, toxic hormonal
ingredients, and known carcinogens such as:

Ethylene oxide

Dioxane

Nitrosamines

Formaldehyde

Acrylamide

These are known carcinogens, and should not be
present in anything you slather on your skin.
Epstein says:

“… the evidence which we’ve accumulated so
far, is largely restricted to the fact that they
[nano particles] get into your bloodstream and
reach organs throughout your body.

And as far as the brain is concerned, we
have actual evidence of entry into the brain and
producing toxic effects -- lesions, small
lesions, toxic effects in the brain.”

Why US Milk is BANNED From All of Europe

On March 18, the New York Times ran an
editorial titled “Honest Food Labels.” In this
article, Dr. Hamburg publicized letters to about 17
or 18 companies, accusing them of masking
undesirable ingredients in their products.

She also emphasized the importance of providing
information that consumers can rely on.

“Very, very unfortunately, however, she
has totally failed to take any such action with
regard to two of our major dietary staples; milk
and meat,” says Eptein.

“She has excluded milk and meat from
undesirable ingredients, and in so doing, she
has created the impression that they are safe.

… About 20 percent of our milk is
genetically engineered. Technically this is
known as rBGH, the small r stands for
recombinant, BGH, is bovine growth hormone… This
[milk] contains very high levels of a natural
growth factor known as IGF-1…

IGF-1 stands for Insulin-like Growth
Factor 1. So growth factor 1 is a natural growth
factor and is responsible for normal growth but
when you drink rBGH milk, you have very, very
high levels of this natural growth factor.

When you drink it, the IGF-1 survives
digestion and is readily absorbed from your
small intestine, into your blood.

Increased levels of IGF-1 have been shown
to increase risks of breast cancer and we have
about 20 publications showing this; risk of
colon cancer [shown] by about 10 publications;
prostate cancer by about another 10
publications.

And a further concern: increased levels
of IGF-1 block natural defense mechanisms
against early cancers, [mechanisms] known as
‘apoptosis.’”

The scientific evidence of the dangers of rBGH
milk is explained in great detail in Dr. Epstein’s
book What’s in Your Milk?, published in
2006.

“Based on the concerns which I have just
briefly summarized, in 1999, the United Nations
Food and Safety Agency, which represents a
hundred nations worldwide, ruled unanimously not
to set safety standards for rBGH milk, and
effectively this has resulted in an
international ban on U.S. milk.

So here we have Margaret Hamburg saying
she wants to prevent any company from selling
food with undesirable ingredients. Yet, American
milk is banned worldwide because of its dangers
-- because of its high levels of IGF-1 and
attendant risks from that.”

It’s even worse than simply ignoring the dangers,
because milk producers who are committed to
providing healthier milk are not allowed to label it
correctly. That’s right, they’re NOT
allowed to say it’s “rBGH-free,” without adding a
big disclaimer saying there are no known health
risks of rBGH…

In an ideal world, agencies like the US FDA would
do the proper investigations and protect you from
known health dangers, so you don’t have to. But
there’s nothing ideal about the current state of
affairs, so it’s imperative to do your own research
and educate yourself about what toxins are lurking
in your foods, drugs, and other consumer products,
so that you can make the conscious choice to avoid
them.

This also goes for most commercial meats.

The Beef with Commercial Meats

One practice in particular makes most commercial
meats potentially dangerous to your health, and
that’s the practice of implanting cattle with sex
hormones prior to entering the feed lot, about 100
days prior to slaughter.

This is done by implanting a pellet containing
natural or synthetic sex hormones under the skin of
the cattle’s ear. The objective is a financial one,
as it increases the meat weight, and hence profits,
by about 10 percent, for very little additional
cost.

As a result, nearly all commercial meats contain
very high levels of sex hormones. Either the natural
hormones: testosterone, estrogen, progesterone, or
the synthetic equivalent.

So here we are, in what I like to
consider is the leading democracy in the world,
in which we sell a staple diet -- meat and milk
-- that are banned worldwide because they pose
major threats of cancer.”

In 1986 there was a report titled “Human
Food Safety and the Regulation of Animal Drugs,”
which was unanimously approved by the House
Committee of Government Operations. In it they
concluded that “the FDA has consistently disregarded
its responsibility, has repeatedly put what it
perceives are interests of veterinarians in the
livestock industry ahead of its obligation to
protect consumers, thereby jeopardizing the health
and safety of consumers of meat, milk, and poultry.”

Unfortunately, nothing has changed as a result of
any of these findings.

Says Epstein:

“The American public are still eating and
drinking ultra dangerous products in spite of
the overwhelming scientific evidence, and in
spite of the warnings they have received from
the rest of the world that “we will not buy your
products.”

… It’s almost like an Alice in Wonderland
situation. We like to think we’re the greatest
democracy in the world and yet we tolerate white
collar crime, industry white collar crime, and
the white collar crimes for profit.

Not only do we tolerate it, we don’t
raise any questions or objections to it.

So, there is something the matter with
the American public because they still
implicitly trust government and my unfortunate
and unhappy warning is: you cannot trust
government. You cannot trust USDA.

You cannot trust FDA, and I say this with
a sense of overwhelming sadness but there’s an
old French expression saying, “Anyone who is in
danger should save himself.” “

Making educated choices when food shopping has
become a necessity, if you want to remain healthy.
That includes avoiding all pasteurized milk,
especially milk containing rBGH, and avoiding all
commercial, conventionally-raised meats.

One exception is lamb. Dr. Epstein confirms that
sex hormones are not used for lambs, and since
they’re slaughtered young, they’re mainly grass-fed,
even when raised non-organically. It’s also fairly
inexpensive, so it can serve as a good alternative
if you don’t have regular access to
organically-raised, grass-fed meats.

What’s Wrong with the Obama Cancer Plan?

President Obama is the first president to develop
a comprehensive cancer plan. Unfortunately, the plan
overwhelmingly emphasises oncology – the treatment
of cancer after diagnosis, and the
references to cancer prevention are scant.

The Obama’s Plan prioritizes and coordinates
several agencies; the National Cancer Institute, the
Research and Clinical Trials, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), Centers for Medicaid
and Medicare services, and the FDA for regulating
cancer drugs.

Congress passed the National Cancer Act in 1971,
which authorized the National Cancer Program to
expand and intensify research on cancer prevention
due to occupational and environmental exposure to
carcinogens.

Shortly after that, President Nixon authorized a
200 million dollar budget for the National Cancer
Institute (NCI). Since then, the NCI budget has
increased more than 30-fold, to over $6 billion for
2010.

Meanwhile, as Dr. Epstein points out, the
incidence of a wide range of cancers (other than due
to smoking) has also escalated sharply.

“In other words, the more money we spend,
the more cancer we’re getting” Dr. Epstein
remarks.

A major part of this puzzle is the fact that the
National Cancer Institute has no interest whatsoever
in prevention.

Its focus is exclusively focused on diagnosed
treatment and oncology research.

Says Epstein:

“The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has
failed to develop or publicize any listing or
registry to avoid all exposures to carcinogens,
and these include some drugs, some
pharmaceuticals, diagnostic radiation,
occupational, environmental exposures to
carcinogens, ingredients and consumer products,
carcinogenic ingredients and consumer products,
food, natural products, cosmetics and personal
care products.

Furthermore, NCI - National Cancer
Institute has failed to respond, except
misleadingly, to a series of congressional
requests for such information.

… In March, 1988, in a series of
questions to NCI director Richard Klausner… we
requested information on NCI’s policies and
priorities, and Congressman Obey said, “Should
the NCI develop or register avoidable
carcinogens and to make this information widely
available to the public?” and the answer was,
and remains, “No.””

Even more befuddling and frustrating is the fact
that the US spend more than five times more than
Great Britain does on chemotherapy, yet survival
rates are similar.

The answer to the cancer epidemic is clearly not
larger budgets for oncology research and drug
development. The answer lies in implementing
preventive measures, and removing known carcinogens
from the market.

Based on Dr. Epstein’s extensive research, here’s
a list of toxic factors that have been linked to
various kinds of cancer:

Malignant melanoma – Use of sunscreens that
fail to block long-wave, ultraviolet light

Ovarian cancer in African-American women
over 65 – Genital use of talc powder

With everything we DO know about cancer, the
official attitude of indifference to prevention is
appalling and immoral.

“We are really dealing with overwhelming
policy ineptitude which verges on the criminal
on the part of directors of the National Cancer
Institute and other Federal agencies,” says
Epstein.

… What is happening to us?

Why don’t we exercise some degree of
control over those who are supposed to guide us,
direct us?”

To hear what other developments are brewing,
please listen to the interview in its entirety, or
read through the transcript. You won’t believe the
potential conflicts of interest that have arisen
within the National Cancer Institute with Harold
Varmus as its newly appointed Director…

Further Educational Sources

You can also find more articles about the dangers
of rBGH milk and hormone-laced meats on my site,
simply by using the search engine at the top of this
page.

Educating yourself and others is a process that
is not completed overnight. But we are making
progress. The more people get educated, the more
we’re able to expose the real facts, and push for
real changes.

You are a big part of this process!

Don’t underestimate your own importance. Our
grassroots efforts paid off big time during last
year’s swine flu debacle, and the public’s refusal
to be duped has resulted in the World Health
Organization now having to take a bite of the sour
apple and confess to at least some of its
improprieties.

So keep reading, keep investigating, and keep
spreading the word about how you can take control of
your health!